I would like to take advantage of this pause, as we wait more news on this legislation, to thank all of you.

There are many fine people who take part in these discussions and you are the kind of people who make our country what it is. I suggest to you all that when we write to our representatives and speak with friends and coworkers we remember that it is Freedom, as gifted to us by our founding fathers and the brave people of our Nation's past, that we should keep in sight. Not just freedom in regards to the 2A, but all our freedoms.

We stand here,(yes I am sitting ), on the edge of what could be a defining moment for our nation's future. And we are living the dream of our forefathers. We are gathered in discussion and debate, taking part in the process, contributing to that future.

Yes. A rather surprising development, and one which one can only conclude is the result of backroom deal-brokering. My conclusion is they have probably received some sort of concession with respect to TVA.

A rather surprising development, and one which one can only conclude is the result of backroom deal-brokering. My conclusion is they have probably received some sort of concession with respect to TVA.

It doesn't feel that way to me. I'm not sure the President has enough beanies to hand out to all these Senators to turn this many votes. People like Coburn that are just recently on record opposing this whole thing? I don't think it is because of something the Democrats did. I think it is being done by the Republican Party acting in a way they see as in their own self interest. Whether it is just a roll call vote on gun control or something else.

As long as we end up winning, not a bad idea. I get sick of the lies from some of the Democrats. They come home at election time and run "Sportsmen for XXX" commercials all over the state. They take pictures hunting. They talk the big talk... right up until they are back in D.C. and their party tells them "we need this vote." As I said.... "As long as we end up winning".... it can turn to our political benefit in 2014. If we really want to stop this second term President, we need to retain the House and take the Senate back. And the Senate needs to happen before Supreme Court members start to retire.

@tulsamal - there are plenty of "beanies" in the 2014 budget submitted this week by President Obama - of particular note is the massive budget allocation to the Department of Energy - of particular concern to a state like Tennessee, with TVA and Oak Ridge within its borders accounting for such a disproportionate share of the state's economy.

I have little doubt but that quid pro quo has been exchanged in this case. You will simply never hear about it, as it is already buried in the middle of the spending request.

I have little doubt but that quid pro quo has been exchanged in this case.

That may well be true in TN's case. I don't know their particular situation. But look at OK's Senator Coburn. He has been vilified in elections before for turning down programs that would put money into OK. He's a budget cutter. They couldn't buy him off by giving him/OK something. And he is such a serious conservative on the budget that I seriously doubt they could offer him spending concessions that would sway him. And he isn't running for reelection.

It feels to me like a coordinated effort. I think we agree on that. I just think some of the coordination is on the Republican side. Some of them think this is the exact issue to use to beat the Democrats. To show them as being in favor of an intrusive and larger type of government. One that all the libertarians will hate. Many libertarians are politically moderate. (At least by Moral Majority standards.) But they will swing 100% to the Republican side if the Democrats can be portrayed as Orwellian.

And this was just a motion to proceed. I seriously doubt the vast majority of these Republicans will actually vote for the bill. If they do.... well then we have a problem. I just don't see that though.

Gregg, my earlier response was specific to TN. I have no knowledge of what my or may not have motivated Coburn to vote Yea, nor McCain/Flake in AZ or Chambliss and the other senator from Georgia (though I know exactly why Lindsey Graham from SC voted Yea).

Your point about it being some sort of concerted Republican leadership action would make every kind of sense, except...Mitch McConnell voted Nay. If this was a case of the traditional Republican senators trying to beat down the Rubios and Rands and Cruz's into supplication, McConnell would have to have been on board and he isn't. So, if it's some sort of concerted application by key Republican senators, it's very difficult to discern its edges or rationale.

I don't think we are going to see much today. Senate rules say that a written amendment must be submitted and it doesn't seem like the key amendment is ready to go. I think most of the "debate" today is going to be backroom wheeling and dealing on number and order of amendments.

Please correct me, but wasn't having a debate about the bill the only way to get its contents into the open?

I can see voting for debate for that reason, to flush the real facts of Democrat ambitions into the light.

I can see the strategy in this. When there is a vote everyone is on record and they’ll be held responsible for their votes. Also, this will maybe make the NRA ratings a little more meaningful since I think some got good ratings in the past that didn’t really deserve them. Hopefully seeing your Senator vote to steal your freedom will wake some folks up. Obviously the danger is that the Bill actually passes, but I guess we’ll see.

__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman

McCain is done, He is in his last term. Arizona is finally through with him.

This is why I vote in primaries. Helps to get rid of the incumbent. I respect the man's sacrifice for the country, but he's been sliding the wrong direction for years now. I hope another candidate can come in to put up a good primary fight against him.

The real issue is Jeff Flake...this is disappointing to me. I'll hold judgement until the final vote on the floor takes place...

I haven't waded through all the rhetoric and bs yet but one item really caught my eye.

"(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this subsection $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017.".

Fellow forum members, we should make everyone receiving Soc. Security about the cost of this mess should it become law. I would think they might make some legislative contact asking why their soc. security COLA is being cut to balance the budget while this bill proposes to spend $400,000,000!

I believe it was former IL Senator Dirksen who uttered the words, " A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money"

I am missing something with this bill. If transfers that don't take place at a gun show and do not take place as a result of an internet ad are not required to have a background check, then why go to the trouble of excluding all those different family transfers listed in the bill? Meaning if a personal face to face transfer does not require a background check, what is the point of listing all those family relationships? Something is fishy.

Already you're exposing yourself by doing a private sale, this would probably push it over the top, especially if private sales become such a tiny minority.

The only way they can enforce this is being like the "straw purchase". It won't be the material matter of where you physically sell (where is the internet?) but how buyer met seller. Basically, to investigate a violation, the question will be things like: "Did you ever meet the buyer on the internet or at a gun show before making an actual sale at Bubba's Gun Range and Bait Shop?"

(t)(1)(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.

also:

Quote:

SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or

"Publication" is undefined. It will be defined by regulation, count on it.

I, for one, will count on "publication" including the newspaper classified ads, as well as the internet.

Which certainly seems likely. I wonder, though, if posting a flier on my gun club's bulletin board also counts as "publication".

On the whole, I don't have a big problem with the proposed requirements as I understand them. It seems to me that it basically says, "if you're selling a gun to a stranger, do it through a FFL with a NICS check," which I don't think is unreasonable. Especially since it's basically an honor system, as all the records collecting registration-by-another-name nonsense has been dropped.

In the what-did-we-gain column, the additions to FOPA are welcome, particularly to those of us in the northeast, who have to go through New Jersey when we visit America.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.